JUDGMENT - N.P. CHAPALGAONKER, J. :---Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule taken up for hearing forthwith by consent of the parties. 2. Petitioners are the members of respondent No. 5 Co-operative Sugar Factory, which is a Specified Society within the meaning of section 144-A(2)(c) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as "Co-operative Societies Act" for the purpose of brevity). The Collector, Ahmednagar, respondent No. 2 published a provisional list of voters on 10th February, 1994 and invited objections and claims on or before 21st February, 1994. It is contended by the petitioners that they had raised objections in respect of some persons included in the provisional voters list and the Collector had sent those objections to the respondent No. 3 i.e. Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, who had powers of the Registrar in respect of the respondent No. 5 Karkhana. However, he did not make any report and the Collector was pleased to pass an order on 4th March, 1994 rejecting all the objections, which needs to be quashed. Prayer is made in the petition that the names of the persons objected to and given in two lists marked as B-1 and B-2 in prayer clause be deleted from the voters list or in the alternative, respondent numbers 2, 3 and 4 be directed to make a fresh enquiry and to delete the names of disqualified and dead persons from the list of voters. 3. Petitioners have annexed four lists of persons against whom they had raised objections. We have marked them as list A, B, C and D. Exhibit B-1 (List A) is a list of 59 persons who allegedly do not hold any land and, therefore, are not qualified to be members and voters of respondent No. 5 Karkhana. At Exhibit B-3 (List B) is a list of 48 persons about whom it was alleged that they have not produced sugarcane and, therefore, are not qualified to be the voters. Third list (List C) of 180 members who are dead and, therefore, their names should be deleted from the voters list. At Exhibit IV (List D) is a list of 414 persons who were admitted to the membership on 18th September, 1993 by the Board of Directors by resolution number 4. Third list (List C) of 180 members who are dead and, therefore, their names should be deleted from the voters list. At Exhibit IV (List D) is a list of 414 persons who were admitted to the membership on 18th September, 1993 by the Board of Directors by resolution number 4. About these persons, it is contended that they were enrolled after 30th June, 1993 and the Collector should have considered 30th June, 1993 to be the qualifying date on the basis of the rules. It was further alleged that they are disqualified. But no specific allegations regarding objections to the membership of these persons appear to have been raised. It was generally contended that they were not qualified. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader made available to us the report submitted by the respondent No. 3 Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, in respect of the objections forwarded to him by the Collector, Ahmednagar. This report is dated 9th March, 1994 and before the receipt of this report, the Collector, Ahmednagar, had already turned down the objections since he had limited jurisdiction under Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committee Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "Specified Societies Rules" for the purpose of brevity) which would not enable him to go into the validity of the membership. In the report dated 9th March, 1994, it was mentioned by the respondent No. 3 that the Collectors letter forwarding the objections was itself dated 4th March, 1994 and it was received by the respondent No. 3 on 5th March, 1994. Therefore, it is clear that when Collector proceeded to decide the objections on 4th March, 1994, the copies of the objections were not even received by the respondent No. 3. It has also been mentioned in the report that the officers of the respondent No. 5 Karkhana were told to produce all the relevant record. However, the record was not made available. At about 5 p.m. in the evening, respondent No. 3 Joint Director (Sugar) was informed that the record would be available in the next morning. However, even on 9th March, 1994 some record was made available at 2 p.m. The nature of the enquiry which the respondent No. 3 had conducted was far from satisfactory. At about 5 p.m. in the evening, respondent No. 3 Joint Director (Sugar) was informed that the record would be available in the next morning. However, even on 9th March, 1994 some record was made available at 2 p.m. The nature of the enquiry which the respondent No. 3 had conducted was far from satisfactory. Firstly, persons against whom objections were raised were not at all heard and secondly, necessary record was neither made available to him nor was requisitioned by him. For instance, the report goes on to mention that the representative of the Karkhana has informed orally that the person mentioned at serial number 14 has a land at Shirsgaon, number 19 at Dahigaon and number 20, 27 and 29 at Kashti. No record in this respect was made available. Similarly, for the list number 2, no record was made available in respect of 11 persons, but the representative of the Karkhana told orally that they had grown the sugarcane which had been crushed by the Karkhana. In respect of serial numbers 67, 213, 214, 216, 217, 218 and 222 residents on Murshadpur, serial number 309 resident of Mahegaon, serial number 311 resident of Kumbhari and serial number 339, no record of the sugarcane cultivation was available. This can hardly be considered to be a valid enquiry. 5. Four objections appear to have been raised by the petitioners. First, it is contended that the persons mentioned in the list A and B should be deleted as they are not qualified to be the voters since either they do not possess any agricultural land or they do not grow sugarcane. Second objection is that the persons mentioned in the list C are dead and, therefore, their names should be deleted and the third objection is regarding 114 members newly enrolled on 18th September, 1993. It was contended that they are not qualified to be members of the respondent Karkhana and since they were enrolled just before the qualifying date, it was not possible to verify whether they were really qualified or not. The last objection is that the Collector should have taken 30th June, 1993 as the qualifying date and, therefore, the members enrolled after that should not have been included in the voters list. 6. The last objection is that the Collector should have taken 30th June, 1993 as the qualifying date and, therefore, the members enrolled after that should not have been included in the voters list. 6. We have heard Shri K.G. Navandar, learned Counsel for petitioners, Shri E.P. Sawant, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Shri S.B. Mhase, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 Karkhana. In view of the submissions made by them, following points arise for our consideration : (i) Whether this Court should entertain the petition and interfere at this stage since election process has already started? (ii) Whether the Collector, Ahmednagar, respondent No. 2 was within his jurisdiction and had acted validly as per rules in extending the qualifying date from 30th June, 1993 to 31st December, 1993 by exercising his powers under proviso to Rule 4(1) of the Maharashtra Specified Co-operative Societies Elections to Committees Rules, 1971? (iii) If before the finalization of the voters list by the Collector some objections and claims are filed with the Collector, whether those objections and claims had to be forwarded by the Collector to the District Deputy Registrar for enquiry under the Specified Societies Rules? (iv) Whether the Registrar or any officer subordinate to him exercising the powers of the Registrar would be competent to go into the question of qualifications of a member after the provisional list of voters was published and, if yes, what would be nature and scope of the enquiry to be made by him? (v) Whether this Court in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should entertain challenge to the voters list of a Specified Co-operative Society when the process of finalization of list was on. 7. The preliminary objection raised by Shri Mhase is that this Court should not entertain this petition and should not interfere since the election process to elect the Directors of respondent No. 5 Karkhana has already started. In support of his contention, Shri Mhase invited our attention to the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of (N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namkkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District others)1, A.I.R. (39)1952 S.C. 64 and in the case of (S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and others)2, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616. In support of his contention, Shri Mhase invited our attention to the judgments of Supreme Court in the case of (N.P. Ponnuswami v. The Returning Officer, Namkkal Constituency, Namakkal, Salem District others)1, A.I.R. (39)1952 S.C. 64 and in the case of (S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan and others)2, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616. Shri Mhase contended that an election is a periodical exercise and any diversion from the schedule laid down by the statute would be injurious to the very democratic spirit which was the foundation of these institutions. Shri Navandar appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the rule not to interfere in the election process is not the rule of jurisdiction but it is a rule of prudence. The High Court or the Supreme Court can always exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 or Article 32 even when the election process is on in a proper case and if the circumstances warrant. The only limitation on the power is that such powers cannot be exercised in the matter of the elections, governed by the Constitution, wherein Article 329(b) prohibits such exercise during the election process. Shri Navandar relied on two judgments of this Court. First is (Pandurang Hindurao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others)3, 1983 Mh.L.J. 1081 and the another is (Eknath Ashiram Alekar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)4, 1990(1) Mah.L.R. 418 . 8. The jurisdiction of the High Court or the Supreme Court in entertaining writ petitions in the election matters has now been well defined. In respect of the elections to which Article 329(b) of the Constitution would be applicable, no challenge would be entertainable except by way of an election petition provided by the statute and the High Court would not be competent to entertain any writ petition challenging any stage in the process of the election. In respect of other elections though there is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction, some of the principles which are applicable to the elections of the legislative bodies can well serve as guidelines for these elections also. In respect of other elections though there is no bar to the exercise of the jurisdiction, some of the principles which are applicable to the elections of the legislative bodies can well serve as guidelines for these elections also. In N.P. Ponnuswamis case (cited supra), Supreme Court arrived at following conclusions : "Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognized to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over, so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election", and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class, which, under the law by which elections are governed would have the effect of vitiating the election and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any Court while the election is in progress." 9. These principles were referred to and reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan others, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616, which was a case arising out of the elections under the Tamilnadu Panchayats Act, 1958. It was alleged that there was an error in allotting symbol to the contesting candidates. The date of scrutiny of the nomination papers was 31st January, 1986. On 8th January, 1986, the State Government had issued an order directing the Returning Officers to assign candidates set up by the national and state parties the symbols reserved for them by the Chief Election Commissioner. Two contesting candidates submitted authority letters, one by the Indian National Congress and the another one by Tamilnadu Congress, claiming themselves to be representatives of the Congress (I) and both claimed symbol hand reserved for the party. One of them was allotted symbol Glass tumbler and the another one fish on 3rd February, 1986 by the Returning Officer. Two contesting candidates submitted authority letters, one by the Indian National Congress and the another one by Tamilnadu Congress, claiming themselves to be representatives of the Congress (I) and both claimed symbol hand reserved for the party. One of them was allotted symbol Glass tumbler and the another one fish on 3rd February, 1986 by the Returning Officer. He subsequently issued errata and allotted symbol hand to one of the contenders. Another candidates who claimed to be validly nominated by the Indian National Congress, filed writ petition before the Madras High Court. Learned Single Judge of that Court, on 17th February, 1986, dismissed the petition. In appeal, Division Bench of High Court quashed the Errata Notification issued by the Returning Officer assiging symbol of hand to one of the candidates and directed that the election should proceed with the original symbols allotted i.e. Glass tumbler and fish. This order of Division Bench of Madras High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court. After referring above mentioned conclusions drawn by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswamis case (cited supra), the learned Judges of the Supreme Court referred to a Full Bench Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of (Malam Singh v. The Collector, Sehore, M.P.)5, A.I.R. 1971 Madhya Pradesh 195, and quoted following para with approval:--- "There is no constitutional bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction in respect of elections to Local Bodies such as, Municipalities, Panchayats and the like. However, as it is desirable to resolve election disputes speedily through the machinery of election petitions, the Court in the exercise of its discretion should always decline to invoke its writ jurisdiction in an election dispute, if the alternate remedy of an election petition is available. "So, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah)6, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 425 stated : ".....though no legislature can impose limitations on these constitutional powers, it is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of cases." 10. Keeping in mind the above observations, we will have to decide whether an interference is warranted after examining the facts of the case at hand. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly entertained in this class of cases." 10. Keeping in mind the above observations, we will have to decide whether an interference is warranted after examining the facts of the case at hand. Shri Mhase contended that the preparation of the list of voters is one of the stages in the election of a Specified Co-operative Society. In support of this, he relied on the provisions of section 144-X (as amended by Maharashtra Act No. 3 of 1974) of the Co-operative Societies Act which authorized State Government to make rules in respect of elections to the Specified Co-operative Societies and specifically included the preparation of the list of voters as one of the stages of election. Even before the amendment of section 144-X, a Division Bench of this Court (consisting of Vimadalal Sapre, JJ.) in Special Civil Application No. 2550/1972 (decided on 23rd September, 1975) has held that the programme of the finalisation of the voters list is a stage in the election. Shri Mhase also submitted that the validity of the voters list can also be one of the grounds of objection to be raised in an election petition under section 144-D of the Co-operative Societies Act challenging an election of the returned candidate. Though for the preparation of the voters list the Collector has to publish separate programme and for other stages in the election commencing from filing of the nomination papers till the declaration of the results a separate programme is to be published under Rule 16 of the Specified Societies Rules, that, by itself, will not enable this Court to hold that preparation of the voters list is not a stage in the election. It is, undoubtedly, a stage in the elections of Specified Co-operative Societies. But that itself will not prevent this Court from entertaining a challenge to voters list in all cases. While considering the question of relief to be granted by interference, High Court will have to consider how far the election process has proceeded. Though the preparation of the voters list is a stage in the election, the nature of this stage is totally different from further stages in the election commencing from filing of the nominations. Specified Societies Rules provide publication of two separate programmes, one for preparation of the voters list and another commencing from filing of the nominations. Though the preparation of the voters list is a stage in the election, the nature of this stage is totally different from further stages in the election commencing from filing of the nominations. Specified Societies Rules provide publication of two separate programmes, one for preparation of the voters list and another commencing from filing of the nominations. Before the election process enters in the stage of nominations, the list of the voters is already finalized and it would not be desirable to entertain any challenge to the list of the voters after the nominations are filed. Need to complete the elections in time and allow validly elected body to take over charge at the scheduled time can never be lost sight of. The availability of an alternate efficacious remedy after the elections are over will also have to be considered. But if something goes into the root of the validity of the election can be corrected in time without disturbing the election schedule, then interference would certainly be warranted. In the case of Pandurang Hindurao Patil v. State of Maharashtra and others, (cited supra), an order of the Returning Officer rejecting the nomination paper was challenged before the Division Bench of this Court. When this challenge was heard by this Court, section 152-A was not inserted in the Co-operative Societies Act. This Court observed thus : "Where the matter is brought before the High Court sufficiently in advance, that the matter can be heard and disposed of before the polling is due to take place and where there is an error on the face of the record such as if a Returning Officer rejects a nomination paper on a wholly inadequate ground, it would save public time and money as well as expense, inconvenience and hardship to the parties if the Returning Officers action is corrected before the election takes place. In such a case relief should not be refused merely because the petitioner can pursue another remedy by filing an election petition after the election is held. Each case should be considered on its own facts and where without staying and postponing the election it is possible to put matters right before the election takes place, it may in appropriate cases be desirable to do so." 11. Each case should be considered on its own facts and where without staying and postponing the election it is possible to put matters right before the election takes place, it may in appropriate cases be desirable to do so." 11. In the case of Eknath Ashiram Alekar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, 1989(3) Bom.C.R. 165 , another Division Bench had considered a challenge to the voters list. 870 sugarcane growers filed a petition before this Court contending that they were sugarcane growers holding lands in the area of operation of Shrigonda Sugar Factory and they had been supplying sugarcane to the factory regularly. Share money necessary for the membership was deducted from their bills. Despite this they were not enrolled as voters and membership was given to 3387 other persons on the last qualifying date i.e. 30th June, 1988 and many of whom were not even qualified. Following the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of (Bar Council of Delhi and another v. Surjeet Singh and others )7, A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1612, this Court found that it was necessary to interfere. 12. A valid list of voters is the basis of a valid election. Though a challenge to the voters list many times involve questions of facts, if sufficient material is placed before the High Court prima facie establishing that qualified voters have been excluded and unqualified voters have been included in the voters list and when the machinery as provided by the Act is available for the enquiry and if such enquiry can be ordered to be completed within shortest possible time so that the elections can take place on or about the scheduled date, this Court would be justified in entertaining challenge to the voters list. 13. Sugar factories and other large Co-operative Societies have become new centres of political and social power. There is a growing tendency to cling to the power by whatever means. To exclude the qualified voters whose loyality to ruling group is doubtful and to include on the eve of elections favourable voters whose qualifications cannot be examined by the rival group are some of the methods which are often adopted. If this Court orders the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to examine the list of voters and enquire the objections, that would be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. If this Court orders the authorities under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act to examine the list of voters and enquire the objections, that would be a proper exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court. It is a fact, which can judicially be acknowledged, that elections of these Societies involve a large expenditure. If these objections are set right to the possible extent before the commencement of the election, this can hardly be objected to. Of course, care will have to be taken that the due date of the elections should not as far as possible be disturbed and such an enquiry should be ordered expeditiously without unduly delaying the take over of the newly elected valid body. 14. Shri Mhase cited before us a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of (Osmanabad Taluka Bhaji Pala Va Phale Utpadak Prakriya Sanstha Ltd. and another v. The Collector, Osmanabad and others)8, 1989 C.T.J. Page 45, wherein this Court refused to interfere and enquire into the validity of the voters list. In that case, the election programme under Rule 16 of the Specified Societies Act was announced on 28th March, 1988 and the last date for making nominations was on 12th April, 1988. When the case came up for decision before this Court, the stage of nomination was already over. Therefore, this Court observed : "We are not inclined to examine the submission of the learned Counsel and grant the relief for the reason that it would immediately disturb the election programme and arrest the process of election." If the nomination papers have already been filed, the election process is advanced to a stage at which the interference would not normally be called for. In the instant case, no programme under Rule 16 of the Specified Societies Rules has been announced. 15. Shri Mhase relied on another judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of (Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited and etc. v. Shrinivas Patil and others, etc.)9, A.I.R. 1992 Bombay 457 which holds that the preparation of the list of voters is an intermediate stage in the process of election and also holds that the disputes relating to the voters list must be resolved by way of substantive election petition under section 144-T of the Co-operative Societies Act and not by a writ petition. So far as the first proposition is concerned, we are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. But so far as the second proposition is concerned, we find that is not the correct position in law. Merely because a point can be raised while questioning the validity of an election, the point is not excluded from consideration in a writ petition. We have already discussed the judgments of Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswamis case (cited supra) and S.T. Muthusamis case (cited supra) and we have also considered the Division Bench judgment in Osmanabad Taluka Bhaji Pala Va Phale Utpadak Prakriya Sanstha Ltd., and another v. The Collector, Osmanabad and others, (cited supra) and we have found that there is no rule of jurisdiction prohibiting the exercise of the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters relating to the preparation of the voters list in the elections of Specified Co-operative Societies. In S.T. Muthusamis case (cited supra) the election was at such a stage that it was wrong to interfere and disturb the order of the Returning Officer. Supreme Court, therefore, had set aside the order of the High Court. As already pointed out in the case of Osmanabad Taluka Bhaji Pala Va Phale Utpadak Prakriya Sanstha Ltd., and another v. The Collector, Osmanabad and others (cited supra), the filing of the nomination papers was complete and a week thereafter, the High Court was called upon to consider the challenge. 16. For the proposition that the High Court should not interfere at the stage of preparation of the voters list, learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Someshwar Sahakari Karkhana Limited and etc. v. Shrinivas Patil and others, 1992(1) Bom.C.R. 590 has relied on S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natarajan, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 616 and the case of (Gujrat University v. N.U. Rajguru)10, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 66. Neither of these cases lay down unexceptionable rule that there should be no interference even at the stage of preparation of voters list. The facts of Muthusamis case (cited supra) have already been mentioned above. The High Court had interfered when the list of contesting candidates was also final. Neither of these cases lay down unexceptionable rule that there should be no interference even at the stage of preparation of voters list. The facts of Muthusamis case (cited supra) have already been mentioned above. The High Court had interfered when the list of contesting candidates was also final. In Gujrat Universitys case (cited supra), the election process was complete, result was announced and though there was an alternate remedy provided by a mandatory provision, the disputants instead of resorting to that remedy, approached directly to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the High Court had set aside the election. Supreme Court disapproved it and reversed the Gujrat High Courts judgment. This was a case wherein the completed election was challenged under Article 226 by passing the machinery designated by the Act. The Supreme Court did find that if the election could be challenged before a forum, that remedy had to be availed. Neither the facts of Muthusamis case (cited supra) nor the facts of Gujrat Universitys case (cited supra) are helpful in appreciating the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, with respect to the learned Single Judge, we are unable to accept the view taken by him. It appears that the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Eknath Ashiram Alekar and others v. State of Maharashtra and others 1989(3) Bom.C.R. 165 was not cited before the learned Single Judge. Therein a view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court that if the circumstances so warrant, High Court can interfere at the stage of the preparation of the voters list and direct an enquiry in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Though this power will have to be used sparingly and only if sufficient facts have been placed warranting such an interference, there is no rule that the High Court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matters of the preparation of the voters list of Specified Co-operative Societies and should ask the petitioner to go for the election on the basis of a defective list and challenge it only after the elections on the basis of that list were complete. 17. Next point for our consideration is about the extension of the qualifying date by the Collector, Ahmednagar. 17. Next point for our consideration is about the extension of the qualifying date by the Collector, Ahmednagar. Year described by the clause "year immediately preceding the year in which such election is due" occurring in Rule 4(1) of the Specified Societies Rules will have to be interpreted to mean a co-operative year immediately preceding the co-operative year in which such election is due. "Co-operative year" has been re-defined to mean the year ending on 31st day of March. Since the elections are scheduled to take place sometime in the co-operative year 1994-95, qualifying date would have been 30th June, 1993. Since voters list was being prepared six months after 30th day of June, 1993, the Collector had discretion to extend the qualifying date of 30th June in consultation with the Registrar. This power is vested in him under proviso to Rule 4 of the Specified Societies Rules. We do not see any fault on the part of the Collector in exercising this discretion and the objection of the petitioners is without foundation. 18. Shri Mhase, learned Counsel appearing for respondent Karkhana, submitted that the respondent Collector had no jurisdiction under the rules to forward the claims and objections which were filed before him under Rule 6(2) before the finalization of the list of voters. According to him, Collector has to forward claims for inclusion in the voters list filed by the persons within 15 days from the date of finalization of the list of voters in Form 1-A to the District Deputy Registrar. This submission of Shri Mhase is justified. Rules do not provide that the objections and claims, filed before the voters list is finalized are to be forwarded to the District Deputy Registrar. It is only after the list is finalized and somebody wants to stake his claim for the inclusion, then such claims, filed within the time specified, will have to be forwarded to the District Deputy Registrar for enquiry. To this extent, the argument of Shri Mhase will have to be accepted. Rules do not provide any enquiry by the District Deputy Registrar in the claims and objections filed before the Collector before the list of voters is finalized. However, if the Collector, being responsible to hold elections, meaning thereby valid elections, comes across certain objections and forwards those objections to the Registrar, this by itself will not be assailable. Rules do not provide any enquiry by the District Deputy Registrar in the claims and objections filed before the Collector before the list of voters is finalized. However, if the Collector, being responsible to hold elections, meaning thereby valid elections, comes across certain objections and forwards those objections to the Registrar, this by itself will not be assailable. As anybody is free to apply to the Registrar directly, any application filed with some other authority connected with the election can also be forwarded by that authority to the Registrar though this is not his statutory duty. If some Irregularity is pointed out to the Collector, he would always be free to bring it to the notice of the Registrar who would be competent to go into the question. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in forwarding copies of such claims and objections though the Collector need not postpone finalization of the list of voters till he receives a report from the Registrar. If the Registrar has power to examine the validity of the claim or objection, he can exercise that power. 19. Next submission to be considered is that the power of the Registrar to examine the question whether a person is qualified to be a member or not, cannot be exercised after the process of preparation of the list of voters is started. Section 11 of the Co-operative Societies Act reads as under : "When any question arises whether a person is an agriculturist or not, or whether any person resides in the area of operation of the society or not, or whether a person is or is not engaged in or carrying on any profession, business or employement, or whether a person belongs or does not belong to such class of persons as declared under sub-section (1-A) of section 22 and has or has not incurred a disqualification under that sub-section, such question shall be decided by the Registrar and his decision shall be final, but no decision adverse to any such person shall be given without giving him an opportunity of being heard." Proviso to section 25-A points out the duty of the Registrar to direct the Society to remove names of dead persons or persons who have ceased to be members or who have incurred disqualification from the register of the members maintained by the Society. Registrar has power of supervision over the Co-operative Societies. Registrar has power of supervision over the Co-operative Societies. All these powers do not stand suspended merely because provisional list of voters is published by the Collector under sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of the Specified Societies Rules. Such a limitation on the power of the Registrar cannot be read since there is none in the statute. Under section 38 of the Co-operative Societies Act, a Society is bound to keep register of its members and it is needless to say that such register should be truthful one. Though the Collector is not empowered to examine the truthfulness of this register, under section 11 and other powers vested by the Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar is certainly duty bound to enquire into the qualifications and disqualifications of the members when questions are raised before him. No provision of the Act or the rules lay down that the power of the Registrar in this respect shall not be exercised merely because the provisional list of voters is published. There are only two limitations on this power of the Registrar. The first one is the limitation imposed by a cardinal rule of election jurisprudence that the list of voters shall remain unchanged from the last date of the nomination of the voters till the election process is over and the second limitation is inherent in the scheme of the Act. If the statute and rules governing the elections lay down that the voters list shall be final, that finality cannot be disturbed by the authorities concerned unless they are specifically so permitted. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if the Registrar exercises his powers under section 11 and other provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act till the list is declared to be final. In fact, so far as the inclusions are concerned, those can be made even thereafter by following the procedure laid down in the Specified Societies Rules. To interpret that the Registrars powers stand suspended would be to add something in the statute which is not there, limiting the powers of the Registrar which are very vital for the proper functioning of the co-operative movement. To interpret that the Registrars powers stand suspended would be to add something in the statute which is not there, limiting the powers of the Registrar which are very vital for the proper functioning of the co-operative movement. As already observed, the growing tendency to use unfair means even while forwarding the list to the Collector requires that the Registrar should be vigilant to curb this evil and should consider the application of any interested member or suo motu exercise powers to see that the qualified members are not excluded and disqualified members are not included in the list. This Court (one of us Chapalgaonker, J., sitting singally) while deciding Writ Petition No. 791/1993 (Ramkishan Bhanudas Shinde and others v. The State of Maharashtra and others)11, considered the scope of the powers of the Registrar and the limitations in respect of the period in which those are to be exercised with reference to Rule 56-D of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Rule 56-D authorizes claims and objections to be filed with the Registrar and the Registrar will have to decide those within 10 days from the last date prescribed for receiving the claims and objections and thereafter the list is conclusively final. Reading this rule along with section 11 of the Co-operative Societies Act, it was held by this Court that the Registrar should not exercise powers after the finalization of list of voters under section 56-D in respect of the notified Societies since election process has itself provided for consideration of the claims and objections and the decision by the Registrar. There is no specific provision in the Specified Societies Rules themselves providing for an enquiry by the Registrar about the claims and objections. Though there is no rule identical to Rule 56-D of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961 in the rules for Specified Societies Rules, the Registrar can act on application by any member or suo motu examine the list of members of such Society in respect of qualification or disqualification. 20. Therefore, we find that the Registrar has all the powers to go into the questions of qualifications and disqualifications of the members even when the provisional list of voters was published. Since the Registrar can exercise his powers suo motu also these provisions in the statute are not merely enabling but they speak about the duty cast on the Registrar. Therefore, we find that the Registrar has all the powers to go into the questions of qualifications and disqualifications of the members even when the provisional list of voters was published. Since the Registrar can exercise his powers suo motu also these provisions in the statute are not merely enabling but they speak about the duty cast on the Registrar. While exercising his powers, the Registrar will not allow the parties to have fishing enquiries and will not allow withholding of the elections. He has power to cease the record if it is not produced before him by the Society, he has to hear claimants, objectors and affected persons expeditiously and give his orders directing the necessary corrections. But he should do so before the list is finalized and is declarated the final list of voters for that election. At best, he can suggest minor extension in the date for publication of the final list of voters to the Collector. But there should not be unnecessary delay in holding of the elections. 21. We have already discussed the propriety of the exercise of the powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the matters relating to the elections. Since in the instant case we find that without much disturbing the scheduled time of the poll, the necessary enquiry can be ordered and since we find that there is a prima facie case made out for the further enquiry, we propose to give directions to the respondent No. 3. We have already observed that we are not satisfied by the manner in which enquiry was conducted by the respondent No. 3. No finding can be recorded on the oral information when the Karkhana had not produced original record. We are also satisfied that the names of the dead members were not removed from the roll despite the mandatory provision in section 25-A of the Co-operative Societies Act and sufficient material was placed before us to order a further enquiry by the Registrar. A question was raised whether this Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 after the list is finalized. The objections which we are considering were raised before the list was finalized and those were not properly enquired into. A question was raised whether this Court can exercise its powers under Article 226 after the list is finalized. The objections which we are considering were raised before the list was finalized and those were not properly enquired into. Therefore, we do not see any harm in exercising our powers in respect of those objections which were raised in time before the list was declared to be final. Even in proper cases, the High Court would be justified in directing the enquiry even after the voters list in final. This Court in Eknath Ashiram Alekar others v. State of Maharashtra and others 1989(3) Bom.C.R. 165 did exercise its powers after the list was final. But it should be done only in exceptional circumstances. It should always be kept in mind that the schedule of the election should not be so disturbed that the entry of the newly elected body would be unduly delayed. 22. This takes us to the factual aspect of the case. Out of four lists for which the objections have been raised, we would first consider the list of 414 persons which is at page 276 of the compilation. They are enrolled members on 18th September, 1993. We have already rejected the objection of Shri Navandar on the ground that they are enrolled after 30th June, 1993. Admittedly, they are enrolled before the qualifying date prescribed by the Collector which was 31st December, 1993. The other objections raised are that they do not reside in the area of operation of respondent No. 5. They do not hold any land or they have not cultivated sugarcane and supplied it to the Karkhana and they are near relatives of the office bearers. So far as the third objection that they are near relatives is concerned, we do not find any force in the contention because there is no provision in the Co-operative Societies Act that the near relatives of the office bearers are restrained from enrolling themselves as members of the Society. So far as the other objections are concerned, we do not have any material placed before us and no specific objections have been raised except the vague and general allegation that they are not cultivators and sugarcane growers and do not possess the land and are from the outside area of operation. So far as the other objections are concerned, we do not have any material placed before us and no specific objections have been raised except the vague and general allegation that they are not cultivators and sugarcane growers and do not possess the land and are from the outside area of operation. The record in respect of sugarcane cultivation in respect of many persons was not available before the Enquiry Officer for verification. However, it was orally told by the representative of the Karkhana to the Enquiry Officer that they are qualified. Respondent No. 3 Joint Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, has also recorded that the record was available only on 9th March, 1994 at 02.00 p.m., the date on which the report was prepared and filed. If it is contended that a member does not own a land, this cannot be proved by merely filing a certificate by the Talathi that he does not own land in that village. It is possible that he may own land in some other village in the area of operation of the Karkhana. Therefore, such enquiry cannot be completed without proper assistance by the Karkhana. When the Collector passed the impugned order on 4th March, 1994, in fact, no report was received by him from Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, who had all powers of Registrar in respondent No. 5 - Karkhana. 23. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The order dated 4th March, 1994 passed by the Collector, Ahmednagar, so far as it relates to the members whose names have been listed in four different lists annexed to this petition at page 27 to 29 (List A), page 113 and 114 (List B), page 136 to 141 (List C) and page 227 to 291 (List D) in the paper-book of this writ petition, is hereby quashed. We direct respondent No. 3 Regional Deputy Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, to hold a fresh enquiry in respect of the objections as to the qualifications of the members listed in respect of the lists A and B after giving due notices to the persons mentioned in the lists as well as objection petitioners. 24. We also direct respondent No. 3 to verify whether persons listed in the list C are really dead and if they are dead, he will direct deletion of these persons from the voters list of the respondent No. 5 Karkhana. 25. 24. We also direct respondent No. 3 to verify whether persons listed in the list C are really dead and if they are dead, he will direct deletion of these persons from the voters list of the respondent No. 5 Karkhana. 25. So far as the list D is concerned, since the Registrar has already entertained the objections and has done some enquiry, we direct that he shall hear the objection petitioners and determine against how many members prima facie case exists. If he finds some truth in the objection prima facie, then he will issue notice to those members only in this list. 26. No deletion from the voters list shall be ordered unless the person affected is given an opportunity of being heard. Respondent No. 3 will issue notice to the persons concerned indicated above and such notices shall be served with the help of the Karkhana respondent No. 5. We direct respondent No. 5 to assist respondent No. 3 in service of the notices and also direct Karkhana to produce all relevant record regarding the qualifications of the members in the lists A, B and D and about the death of the members in the list C. 27. We make it clear that no further objection shall be entertained by the respondent No. 3 during the course of the enquiry and decision of the enquiry which we are directing would be final so far as the ensuing election is concerned. We direct respondent No. 3 Regional Joint Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, to hold the enquiry by notifying the place of enquiry in the notices which he would serve on the petitioners and the persons affected, that is to say, all persons mentioned in the list A, B and persons against whom he finds a prima facie case from the list D. The enquiry should be conducted on 13th, 15th and 16th of April 1994. The report shall be submitted on or before 19th April, 1994 and the Collector respondent No. 2 shall modify the final list of voters in accordance with the decision given by the Enquiry Officer who would specifically say whether a person is to be excluded or not and will modify the final list of voters which is already published. The copies of the modified list of voters shall be made available in the manner prescribed, for the final list of voters. The copies of the modified list of voters shall be made available in the manner prescribed, for the final list of voters. After the list is so modified, respondent No. 2 shall be at liberty to publish the election programme. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of this petition. Petition allowed. *****